'Sinking' Pacific nation is getting bigger: study

February 9, 2018

The Pacific nation of Tuvalu—long seen as a prime candidate to disappear as climate change forces up sea levels—is actually growing in size, new research shows.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu's nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu's total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

"We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing," he said.

"The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion."

It found factors such as wave patterns and sediment dumped by storms could offset the erosion caused by rising water levels.

The Auckland team says climate change remains one of the major threats to low-lying island nations.

But it argues the study should prompt a rethink on how such countries respond to the problem.

Rather than accepting their homes are doomed and looking to migrate to countries such as Australia and New Zealand, the researchers say they should start planning for a long-term future.

"On the basis of this research we project a markedly different trajectory for Tuvalu's islands over the next century than is commonly envisaged," Kench said.

"While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."

The study's authors said island nations needed to find creative solutions to adapt to climate change that take into account their homeland's evolving geography.

Suggestions included moving populations onto larger islands and atolls, which have proved the most stable and likely to grow as seas rise.

"Embracing such new adaptation pathways will present considerable national scale challenges to planning, development goals and land tenure systems," they said.

"However, as the data on island change shows there is time (decades) to confront these challenges."

Climate change will dominate discussions when the leaders of vulnerable Pacific nations hold their annual meeting in the Samoan capital Apia this week, with global warming threatening their existence, officials say.

It is widely predicted that low-lying coral reef islands will drown as a result of sea-level rise, leaving their populations as environmental refugees. But new evidence now suggests that these small islands will be more resilient ...

Recommended for you

Scientists have found a rapid way of producing magnesite, a mineral which stores carbon dioxide. If this can be developed to an industrial scale, it opens the door to removing CO2 from the atmosphere for long-term storage, ...

This summer's worldwide heatwave makes 2018 a particularly hot year. And the next few years will be similar, according to a study led by Florian Sévellec, a CNRS researcher at the Laboratory for Ocean Physics and Remote ...

Arsenic-contaminated drinking water is a major health hazard, with chronic exposure causing illnesses and cancers. The World Health Organization estimates that in Bangladesh, for example, over 5 million people were exposed ...

An international team of researchers has found that there are few areas where palm oil cultivation could be undertaken in Africa that would not cause harm to native primates. In their paper published in Proceedings of the ...

In a kind of geological mystery, scientists have known for decades that a massive ice sheet stretched to cover most of Canada and much of the northeastern U.S. 25,000 years ago. What's been trickier to pin down is how—and ...

More than 100 oceanic floats are now diving and drifting in the Southern Ocean around Antarctica during the peak of winter. These instruments are gathering data from a place and season that remains very poorly studied, despite ...

We seem to keep walking back all the terrible things that global warming was supposed to do or going to make happen. And here we go again............. Could it be that the sea levels are not really rising and that the data has been manipulated or just plain wrong? I kind of think we all really know the answer to that and some are not ready to admit it. So they come up with some other wacky explanation that makes even less sense to justify that the previous misrepresentations were not really wrong. Maybe the whole premise is wrong....just sayin'.

Alright, one less thing to worry about. =)The comment section is so much nicer before the evil trolls get here.

I'm not sure they don't have to worry about it. As the sea level rise continues to accelerate, it's not clear to me that the island growth will be able to keep up. Will the island really be able to grow 2m (or more) by the end of the century? And grow even faster after that? It seems to me they just have more time than they thought.

they have some nerve claiming that sea level can 'rise' in one area and not another . you know , water finds its own level ,,,,,,, basic stuff . OR what they mean but refuse to say, land may be rising or falling .

I would expect more from a science site. 1) Aren't these islands part of the Pacific Ring of Fire tectonic activity? 2) One island in a region was "sinking" but others weren't and this was due to rising sea levels?

Alright, one less thing to worry about. =)The comment section is so much nicer before the evil trolls get here.

I'm not sure they don't have to worry about it. As the sea level rise continues to accelerate, it's not clear to me that the island growth will be able to keep up. Will the island really be able to grow 2m (or more) by the end of the century?

A question that seems unasked by climate change advocates, is whether it's cheaper for man to adapt to climate change, then try to stop it assuming man affects it. Frankly, given all the models are way off on the higher temperature side, don't take into account changes of the Sun, and omit so many variables I don't believe man affects global temperature significantly.

Okay can we get that punchlist of issues we will have to deal with as a result of 'climate change' and / or global warming back out? What if there is global warming and it is overall ...good for the inhabitants of the planet. Has anyone dared to consider that?

[As the sea level rise continues to accelerate, it's not clear to me that the island growth will be able to keep up. Will the island really be able to grow 2m (or more) by the end of the century? And grow even faster after that? It seems to me they just have more time than they thought.

Summary of the reasons why CAGW myth is over:Global greening and increased crop yields due to higher CO2 levels;No appreciable rise in sea levels, and no change in the rate of rise (or slight decrease in the rate);No appreciable human induced warming of either oceans or troposphere in over 20 years;Arctic sea ice is rebounding, and very thick;Highest ever Antarctic ice cover, including sea ice;90% of glaciers growing;IPCC models that invariably run hot;Lack of correlation with solar cycles; The no-CO2 agenda hurts the poorest;and the 'consensus' meme is false.

You'll notice the data only goes through 2016, but by the end of 2016, global sea level is trending downward as is normal after a large El Niño. More importantly, a recalculation of data from the satellites decreased the trend to 3.0 mm/yr.

This recalculation hasn't shown up at the University of Colorado sea level page, but it illustrates the important point that the difference between satellite data (3.4 mm/yr or 3.0 mm/yr) and tide gauge data (~2 mm/yr) is due to instrument precision and statistical processing not an actual change in sea level rise.

This article is a little misleading and its value questionable looking at the interpretation by the comments section. What does it matter if there is more land if this is unusable because of salinity of the soil?

The key, I imagine for Tuvaluans, is ""While we recognise that habitability rests on a number of factors, loss of land is unlikely to be a factor in forcing depopulation of Tuvalu."" Indeed it is the other factors which are actually valuable. If the land still submerges every king tide - what does it matter that this research says there is more land? Except that it might direct people to think that Tuvalu's future is o.k., when it is not. This makes, I believe, this article really irresponsible journalism.

Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades

No, rate clearly has not increased in recent decades, despite Rebecca Lindsey's assertion in "Climate Change: Global Sea Level". If you look at University of Colorado's graph of satellite measurements (3.4 mm/yr trend), there is no acceleration over the satellite measurement period (1979–present).

If you look at studies that use tide gauge data prior to (and overlapping) the satellite measurement period, you will also see essentially no acceleration. See the second graph on the "NASA Vital Signs" page:

JohnMadrid, sea levels are still rising, on average by either ~3 mm/yr (satellite data) or ~2 mm/yr (tide gauge data), as they have been for millennia since the glaciers of the previous glacial period began melting. If the past is an indicator of the future, we can expect another roughly 16 feet of sea level rise over the next several thousand years, all natural.

Coral atolls like Tuvalu are growing in size which has the effect of reducing local sea level rise or even reversing it. Coral is a living organism and when it dies it increases the size of the island. Sand and sediment accumulation around the island also increase its area. Not a lot of people know that.

Like most of the claims of climate alarmists, there is no evidence to support their notion that sea level rise is inundating coral atolls, that sea level rise is "accelerating", and that humans are "causing" sea level rise.

The Jurassic period. O2 in atmosphere was 130% modern levels. CO2 was at 1950ppm, 5-7 times modern levels. The temperature was a whole 3 DEGREES C over modern times! Oh no! The Jurassic DGW, Dinosaurogenic Global Warming, shows that those Dinosaurs - with their Airplanes, SUVs, Coal Fire Plants and Cars and stuff, you know, those Dinosaurs and their DGW destroyed THE WHOLE PLANET!! With their DGW! Look, who wants 26% atmospheric oxygen? More air to breathe? Who wants that? And who wants more CO2 @1950 ppm, you know, to make all those plants and trees convert that CO2 into a higher O2! Who wants that! And we DON'T want the massive biodiversity of the Jurassic, no, we don't want more plants and animals and trees, no.

Any time period the warmunists want to "prove" there is AGW the warmunists just cherry pick ranges. And now I give the warmunists what the need on a silver platter - now they have the perfect example - the Dinosaurs and their horrible DGW (Dinosauric Global Warming)

mickrussom - what was responsible for the warming in the Jurassic period?

What is responsible for the current warming trend?

How do we know what the climate conditions were during the Jurassic period? - hint - it may be the scientists who study the climate that have given us this data.

What do the scientists who study the climate (past and present) tell us about the risks involved with the current warming trend?

Maybe you really don't know as much as you think you do about this issue. Bit like captbob and aksdad above - who think they have made grand pronouncements - but like you have just advertised their ignorance of the issues.

It's amazing that no matter what happens to contradict GW it's always portrayed as some special event that has merely 'delayed' GW but never as something that disproves GW. I guess those 'scientists' are gonna keep milking that GW cow as long as they can.

they have some nerve claiming that sea level can 'rise' in one area and not another . .

snoosebaum

WOW you are ignorant. The sea level can rise in all areas but in a few places the local land can rise faster than the sea level rise thus make its local shores rise; -welcome to this thing called 'geology'.

Hey Thorium Boy - don't you know that facts generally trump ad hominem? Now if you disagree with NASA scientists when they present data - in the form of 2 nice easy graphs - that show that between 1870 and 1990, ocean levels rose at a rate of 1.5 mm per year. Then between 1995, and 2017 - they rose at a rate of 3.2 mm per year. Perhaps you could write your paper, get it published, and turn the science world on it's head. On the other hand - you could snipe on the comments section of a neat science web site - and of course present no supporting data.

So I also now hear the sun is going to cool for decades and thus it will 'mitigate' global warming

Having a few pints with the mates - and someone said that right Deaf? Didn't happen to write a paper about it that you could link to did they?

I thought Al Gore said there would be no snow at all on earth by now and the sea would rise?

Funny how everyone has to bring up good old Al. You know he's a politician right? Could you give us a link to said quote - about no snow on earth? You do know that sea levels are rising - right? Trump said that Global warming was a Chinese hoax - http://www.newswe...t-618898

All those scientists who are proven wrong by this study, would say that global warming is changing our planet so dramatically that the sea level is retreating in those places where it is supposed to rise... This change in Tuvalu will also be attributed to global warming!!

No one is proven wrong by this study. It is another advance in our understanding of a complex world. The effects of sea level rise are already being felt around the world - https://www.nytim...gun.html

It is intelligent and prudent of us to study this problem - and listen to the science - not listen to those that do not have scientific credentials or experience - but want to throw nonsense from the sidelines.

From the paper: "Existing paradigms are based on flawed assumptions that islands are static landforms, which will simply drown as the sea level rises. There is growing evidence that islands are geologically dynamic features that will adjust to changing sea level and climatic conditions."

This makes a lot of sense. Consider the plasticity of the mantle, lithosphere, and asthenosphere. The Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia are still bouncing up from the last ice age. If melt water causes the oceans to rise, then there is greater weight on the ocean bottom which pushes tectonic plates and perhaps sea mounts and islands up. If billionths of +H change to ocean acidity are of merit then minute changes to water weight on the ocean floor merits serious consideration.

- said new coral sand etc 'deposits' TEMPORARILY may balance usual/increased erosion due to said storms etc (which storms etc are made worse by AGW effects); HOWEVER...

- LONG TERM dangers remain/worsens because: ( a ) such 'dune' deposits CAN easily 'disappear' in the next unfavorable 'pattern' of storms/current etc which will EXACERBATE due to AGW related enhanced climate dynamics (all beaches/dunes so near water's edge are 'in flux').

and ( b ) the FRESH WATER TABLE still at same level, so rising sea levels mean SALT WATER INGRESS will exacerbate and destroy that fresh water resource because the 'new sand/dunes' are PERMEABLE and the already occurring ingress of salt water will not be stopped but only accelerate as sea level rises.

Again, there's really nothing 'new' in this; anyone familiar with LITTORAL DYNAMICS already knew all this. So the above 'study' seems just another of those all-too-frequent 'publish or perish' type exercises/publications that infests many areas of science literature/discourse; adding nothing 'new', and may actually further confuse things (as some of the comments here demonstrate only too well).

Calm down, everyone. It's not a 'game' of 'us against them'. Work together not against each other. We're all on the same Earth 'lifeboat', hey?

All those scientists who are proven wrong by this study, would say that global warming is changing our planet so dramatically that the sea level is retreating in those places where it is supposed to rise... This change in Tuvalu will also be attributed to global warming!!

This article is poorly written in that it puts one bit of research out of the total context that actual Tuvaluans live with day in and day out.

Whether or not Tuvalu's islands grow by 1000's km3 matters not if they are so low that because of the rising sea levels you can't plant crops. It doesn't matter how much land you gain if during high tides the seas washes over large swathes of the islands. Importantly to the Tuvaluans who have a rich culture, their stories, ancestry (gravesites, etc) are literally being washed away.

Ok. Like wow I've not read as much BS in one comment section as I have on this article. I mean you climate deniers are at a fever pitch on this one. Can we all just sing "LAHHHHwwww" and drown out this total horse sh*t? So for example;

This makes a lot of sense. Consider the plasticity of the mantle, lithosphere, and asthenosphere. The Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia are still bouncing up from the last ice age.

That's it. I call BS! Like this even effects the small island nation of Tuvalu. I mean are the AGW denier goons so desperate that goofy is the new science for them? I bet they would believe anything you toss at them, like wolves sucking the marrow of a bone if FOX news gave it to them.As you denier goons want to claim;

Do you know what makes climate change deniers better than the rest of you fools? They don't believe in the science behind AGW. Do you know why this makes them better? Because you use the same technology (the culprit in anthropogenic warming effects) that they do. Whether you support the science or not the average carbon footprint from both sides is roughly equal. So, as you sit here typing on a device that in its manufacture and use adds greenhousing agents to the environment and bitch about how anthropogenic practices (which you are at the moment of reading this practising yourself) are ruining the climate and planet, think about that fact. You are just as responsible for AGW as that "RW climate denier goon". So what are you gonna do about it? Write a response, which in effect will be adding to the problem? How about doing stuff to actually help and make a change. Stop using computers, electricity, cars, buses, planes. Stop living in houses that have been built with power tools.

It is intelligent and prudent of us to study this problem - and listen to the science - not listen to those that do not have scientific credentials or experience - but want to throw nonsense from the sidelines

You should follow your own advice:

Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how muchFebruary 7, 2018, University of California - San Diego

How about doing stuff to actually help and make a change. Stop using computers, electricity, cars, buses, planes. Stop living in houses that have been built with power tools.

.........Greeno expects YOU to do that, not HIM. You see, he reasons that just one person (you) following his green advice gives him the offsetting latitude & benefit for not following the lifestyle he sets for others but won't himself practice, of course he'll say he practices such a lifestyle but he won't PROVE it to be factual, in contrast to what gkam does by putting up EVIDENCE that he's not just PREACHING but in fact PRACTICING.

There is a bit of a difference between someone who, after being made aware of a mistake, is prepared to help alleviate the mistake and someone who will just ignore the notice and keeps on making the mistake.

Stop using computers, electricity, cars, buses, planes. Stop living in houses that have been built with power tools.

That's a false dichotomy, and you know it. No one is advocating for a full stop of civilization, because that is not needed. All that is needed is to live within our means (where 'means' in the context of AGW is the climate budget)

All that is needed is to live within our means (where 'means' in the context of AGW is the climate budget)

......AGW gobblygook.

So why are the most visible of advocates of REDUCING CARBON USE the most unapologetic offenders of using it? For example Al Gore flying all over the globe in his private jet & the huge house he lives in?

At least by 2050 our present carbon use will have a positive result when it offsets dropping worldwide temps of the dimming Sun, in the meantime I'm gonna really ramp up my use of firewood so I won't be freezing my ass off by 2050 while at the same time doing my part to prevent the resultant cooling of the planet.

At least by 2050 our present carbon use will have a positive result when it offsets dropping worldwide temps of the dimming Sun, in the meantime I'm gonna really ramp up my use of firewood so I won't be freezing my ass off by 2050 while at the same time doing my part to prevent the resultant cooling of the planet.

At least by 2050 our present carbon use will have a positive result when it offsets dropping worldwide temps of the dimming Sun

links/references?

considering you've not been able to provide links or references to show where the sun will be dimmed to a point in 2050 that will cause widespread cooling allowing for your additional claim to be supported, then what you have posted is a belief

but if you consider the evidence, it's delusional:Church et al. (2011)Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)

you will refuse to read the studies (like always)you will interject random irrelevant data (like above: Gore, GreenO, myself)you will post about DE's despite your proven inability to do basic mathyou will argue with your own self-perceived authority

Ok. Like wow I've not read as much BS in one comment section as I have on this article. I mean you climate deniers are at a fever pitch on this one. Can we all just sing "LAHHHHwwww" and drown out this total horse sh*t? So for example;

This makes a lot of sense. Consider the plasticity of the mantle, lithosphere, and asthenosphere. The Labrador Peninsula and Scandinavia are still bouncing up from the last ice age.

That's it. I call BS! Like this even effects the small island nation of Tuvalu. I mean are the AGW denier goons so desperate that goofy is the new science for them? I bet they would believe anything you toss at them, like wolves sucking the marrow of a bone if FOX news gave it to them.As you denier goons want to claim;

there is exactly one post I made to you- and it's factually accurate and supported by evidence linked and referenced in said post

..........and previously you said:

inks/references?

considering you've not been able to provide links or references to show where the sun will be dimmed to a point in 2050 that will cause widespread cooling allowing for your additional claim to be supported, then what you have posted is a belief

https://phys.org/...sts.html ......and so I did where your post is located just above mine that you at first stated didn't exist, now you are simply trying to do the usual walk back after you've been caught in yet another one of your fairytale fantasies

What you lack downstairs is superbly indicative of what you lack upstairs, eh Stub.Your ultimate fantasy.

What does greeno expect anyone to do? Please provide links to where I have told anyone else what to do in terms of climate change. You can't. In other words - as usual - you make up nonsense - and are unable to support it. In terms of evidence - and thinking scientifically - you are very sad....

I think we each have to decide our own path. What I advocate for is an intelligent approach to understanding our world - and to talking about it. You seem not capable of that.

What I advocate for is an intelligent approach to understanding our world - and to talking about it. You seem not capable of that.

.......the fundamental difference being that I can solve Rate of Reaction Equations, all you've EVER done on this site is embark on foul mouthed name calling binges when you are challenged to prove your long held contention that the Sun does not create Climate Change. Oh, almost forgot, I can also solve Differential Equations.

the fundamental difference being that I can solve Rate of Reaction Equations

You keep telling us that - what you don't do is back up the bullshit claim that you made - with any kind of explanation - or link. So the fact that you may be able to do calculus is irrelevant. The fact that you lack very basic logic skills in terms of being able to answer a very straightforward question about an assertion you made - seems far more pertinent.

All that is needed is to live within our means (where 'means' in the context of AGW is the climate budget)

Really? In your picture perfect world we can have the cake and eat it too? Sorry to burst your bubble but it doesn't work that way. There is a direct correlation between industrialization and greenhouse gas emissions. Mining and refining of materials does not need to happen in your world? Do you know where the green tech favorite neodymium comes from and the process under which it becomes a usable component for electronic manufacturing? Do you know how Uranium is mined and enriched for power generation? Mining and refining of metals in steel manufacturing? It seems you look at end product clean assembly plants and forget where the materials come from and the processes that make them possible.

Please explain what this "climate budget" lifestyle looks like. I could really use a good laugh.

"Reduced energy from the sun might occur by mid-century—now, scientists know by how much"

It's you DENIERS that the Sun is the primary driver of CLIMATE CHANGE who are the pseudo-science trolls being really good at dismantling your own positions.

Next, it'll be so much fun as you try telling us you never said the Sun was not the primary driver of CLIMATE CHANGE, can't wait for that, in fact that will begin coming up very shortly, right? OK DENIERS, on your mark, get set, GO.

If anything the science trolls are really good at dismantling their own positions. It's like shooting fish in a barrel - with the fish doing their own shooting

LMFAOI know, right?

I usually just ignore his rantings - I know a couple folk who just report them

Sometimes I don't know if he is intentionally going for comic relief or displaying genuine stupidity though... with benji it's hard to tell because there are absolutely no demonstrations of any skill or intelligence

Classic Dunning-Kruger though, so it's a great example to have when you need to demonstrate it

Uh, Stubby, you're back on Ignore & you're not coming back. We know why you have ex-wives as if we couldn't have figured it out the very first time we ever saw that Stumpy handle. That you label yourself the Captain of the stubbies really is insightful.

Rabid and jaundice minds like should read something like https://doi.org/1...16007114 to flush some of the ignorance and putrid bias from the little boxes to which they are limited. This particularly before they blurt out how useful an idiot they are.

The material on sea level rise has always attributed such to either thermal expansion or melt water. It would be interesting to see research on sea level effect from movement of tectonic plates or sea bed rise. The rise of the Labrador and Scandinavian peninsulas, rise or fall of the mid ocean rights, and rise of oceanic hots spots, like Hawaii, and magmatic upwelling could add or subtract from sea level.

We seem to keep walking back all the terrible things that global warming was supposed to do or going to make happen. And here we go again............. Could it be that the sea levels are not really rising and that the data has been manipulated or just plain wrong? I kind of think we all really know the answer to that and some are not ready to admit it. So they come up with some other wacky explanation that makes even less sense to justify that the previous misrepresentations were not really wrong. Maybe the whole premise is wrong....just sayin'.

Could it be that a desperate delusional dumb phark always anxiously seeks for any scrap of possible to try to validate his delusion?

Is it possible that this increase in land area could explained also by the augmentation of the mass of the sea and the effects ( deformations ) on the crust particularly on the layers are thin (like Ring of Fire) ?By a greater pressure of the ocean on the crust , a kind of "tire bubble" could appear and could increase.

they have some nerve claiming that sea level can 'rise' in one area and not another . you know , water finds its own level ,,,,,,, basic stuff . -snoosebaum

Water's "own level" is anything but trivial, even ignoring tides. High air pressure pushes down harder on the water than in areas of low air pressure. Conveniently, wind tends to blow from high to low pressure, allowing wind to push water from the high-pressure dip to the low-pressure bulge. Ocean currents, when confronted with an obstacle such as a shoreline or seamount, will produce a bulge (to visualize what's happening, aim a hose perpendicular to your wall and notice that some of the water sprays upwards). The gravity of dynamic objects like glaciers pulls water toward them, increasing the local sea level. A melting glacier is a double-whammy of not just its own water but a release of its gravitational bulge water.